N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2015,18:17) | This is definitely more precise:
| Quote | | Intentionally getting out of the way of the approaching invisible shock zone requires the ability to (from past experience) predict future environmental events. |
|
There is the minor problem that some people don't like to unnecessarily (although even some of those will allow for the possibility on occasion like when one really needs to boldly go with the flow of a sentence that's kind of on a great roll, like this one, or at least which became somewhat of a TV tradition, although some others continue to object to them anyway) split a decorated with loosely attached prepositional phrases and dangling participles infinitive and run on-sentences with weird punctuation, and hyphenation that kind of pile up in a tangle before they finally get to the end and curl up and die.
There is also the much larger problem that what little of your crap is clear enough to be unambiguously understandable is either trivial or obviously false, as well as being very badly written. On the Sandwalk thread, you demonstrated that you:
- are still clueless about operational definitions,
- still don't have a valid definition for intelligence,
- still don't see the contradiction between self-similarity and emergence
- still can't get pronouns and numbers sorted out (alligators ... her mouth)
- still don't know what a theory is
- still don't get that most salmon spawn and die, and are therefore terrible role models as devoted parents
- still litter your text with gratuitous religious dogwhistles
- still make assertions left, right, and center without bothering to back anything up, and
- etc., ad nauseum
|
